Open Access

Ensuring food security and halting biodiversity loss are two of the most pressing global sustainability challenges. Traditionally food security and biodiversity conservation were treated as mutually exclusive goals, and as a result, discourses and approaches were developed separately around each of these goals. Recently, however, sustainability science increasingly recognizes the close interdependence of food security and biodiversity and hence, pays greater emphasis to the need for integration of the two goals. Navigating pathways to ensure the successful integration of the two goals is, therefore, an important requirement. Attempts to identify pathways toward such integration have been dominated with a biophysical-technical focus that provides technical solutions to the integration of food security and biodiversity conservation. To this end, different food production techniques, and agricultural land use strategies have been widely considered as a solution to the food security-biodiversity nexus. While much scholarly attention has been given to the biophysical-technical dimensions, the social-political dimension, including equity, governance, and empowerment received little to no attention. By focusing on the poorly investigated social-political dimension, this dissertation aimed to identify governance properties that facilitate and impede the integration of food security and biodiversity conservation through an empirical case study conducted in a multi-level governance setting of southwestern Ethiopia. To address the overarching goal of this dissertation, first I examined how the existing widely discussed food security approaches and agricultural land use framework, land sparing versus land sharing unfold in the local context of southwestern Ethiopia. The finding in this dissertation indicated that the existing global framing of food security approaches as well as frameworks around agricultural land use has limited applicability in on-the-ground realities mainly because landscapes are complex systems that consist of stakeholders with multiple and (often) conflicting interests. This was evident from the finding that, unlike the binary framing of agricultural land use as land sparing and land sharing, local land use preference was not a matter of ‘either/or’, but instead involved mixed features exhibiting properties of both land sparing and land sharing. Moreover, in addition to the biophysical factors embedded in the existing food security approaches and land use frameworks, stakeholders preference involved social factors such as the compatibility of land use strategy with local values and traditions, which are mainly unaccounted in the existing global frameworks. Findings in his dissertation revealed that the existing reductionist analytical framings to the issues of food security and biodiversity conservation seldom address the complexity inherent within and between food security and biodiversity conservation sectors. Second, this dissertation identified governance structural and process related challenges that influence individual as well as integrated achievements of food security and biodiversity conservation goals. The result of the study showed that the governance of food security and biodiversity conservation was characterized by a strongly hierarchical system with mainly linear vertical linkages, lacking horizontal linkages between stakeholders that would transcend administrative boundaries. This type of governance structure, where stakeholders interaction is restricted to administrative boundaries could not fit with the nature of food security and biodiversity conservation because the two goals are complex in their own involving sub-systems transcending different policy sectors and administrative boundaries. Furthermore, with regard to the governance process, three key and interdependent categories of governance process challenges namely, institutional misfit, the problem of interplay, and policy incoherence influenced the achievement of individual and integrated goals of food security and were identified. Given the interdependence of these governance challenges, coupled with the complexity inherent in the food security and biodiversity conservation, attempts to achieve the dual goals thus needs an integrative, flexible and adaptive governance system Third, to understand how food security and biodiversity conservation unfold in the future, I explored future development trajectories for southwestern Ethiopia. Iterative scenario planning process produced four plausible future scenarios that distinctly differed with regard to dominating land use strategies and crops grown, actor constellations and governance mechanisms, and outcomes for food security and biodiversity conservation. Three out of the four scenarios focused on increasing economic gains through intensive and commercial agricultural production. The agricultural intensification and commercialization may increase food availability and income gains, but negatively affect food security through neglecting other dimensions such as dietary diversity, social justice and stability of supply. It also affects biodiversity conservation by causing habitat loss, land degradation, and water pollution, biodiversity loss. In contrast, one scenario involved features that are widely considered as beneficial to food security and biodiversity conservation, such as agroecological production, diversification practices, and increased social-ecological resilience. In smallholder landscapes such as the one studied here, such a pathway that promises benefits for both food security and biodiversity conservation may need to be given greater emphasis. In order to ensure the integration of food security and biodiversity conservation, recognizing their interdependence and addressing the challenges in a way that fits with the local dynamics is essential. In addition, addressing the food security-biodiversity nexus requires a holistic analytical lens that enables proper identification of system properties that benefit food security and biodiversity conservation. Moreover, this dissertation indicated that there is a clear need to pay attention to the governance structure that accommodates the diversity of perspectives, enable participation and strong coordination across geographical boundaries, policy domains and governance levels. Finally, this dissertation revealed opportunities to integrate food security and biodiversity through the pro-active management of social-ecological interactions that produce a win-win outcome. The win-win outcome could be achieved in a system that involve properties such as diversification and modern agroecological techniques, smallholders empowerment, emphasize adaptive governance of social-ecological systems, value local knowledge, culture and traditions, and ensure smallholders participation. While such diversification and agroecological practices may lack the rapid economic development that is inherent to the conventional intensification, it essentially create a system that is more resilient to environmental and economic shocks, thereby providing a more sustainable long-term benefit.

Water is vital for humankind and ecosystems alike. However, population growth, agricultural inten-sification, urbanization, and climate change embody potential hazards and pressures for water re-sources without existing long-term solutions. For two decades now, policy and governance literature has increasingly emphasised the role of learning in finding solutions to environmental policy prob-lems and effectively steering governance practices. Participation of non-state actors in decision mak-ing is widely considered to deliver learning products that support effective outcomes for environ-mental problems. Besides, the institutionalisation of participation through legislation opens up the necessity for (administrative) organizers to learn about participation as a governance mode in order to steer its effective working. Apart from participation, management approaches specifically aiming at driving learning, such as adaptive management (AM), are increasingly endorsed in water govern-ance. Despite the current prominence of learning in the environmental governance literature, evi-dence is lacking on which learning approaches function effectively regarding outcomes, whether participation aids learning, and how learning about successful governance arrangements is most effectively promoted. This doctoral dissertation aims to contribute to clarification of the potential of learning for water governance. The goal is to trace and understand the environmental impacts of learning through par-ticipation (research aim 1) and adaptive management (research aim 2), and the effect of learning on participation as a governance mode (research aim 3). For this goal, I engage in a predominantly qualitative research design following the case study method. For every specific research aim cases are selected and analysed qualitatively according to conceptual categories and mechanisms which are defined beforehand. Quantitative studies are used to corroborate the results for research aim 1 and 2 in a mixed-method approach to enhance the valid-ity of results. The empirical research context is European water governance, the implementation of the EU Water Framework and EU Floods Directive (WFD, FD) specifically. Eight cases of participa-tory decision-making across three European countries and five cases of AM in Northern Germany for WFD implementation are examined to identify whether learning in these processes enhanced envi-ronmental outcomes. To detect whether governance learning by public officials occurred, the design of participatory processes for FD implementation in ten German federal states is assessed. The findings of research aim 1, understanding learning through participation and its effects on water governance, reveal that participatory planning led to learning through improved understandings at an individual and group level. Learning did, however, hardly shape effective outcomes. In the AM cases (research aim 2) managers and participants of implementing networks improved their knowledge as well as capacities, and spread the results. Nonetheless, environmental improvement was not necessarily linked to ecological learning. Regarding learning about participation as a govern-ance mode (research aim 3) all interviewed public officials in German federal states reported some degree of governance learning, which emerged not systematically but primarily drawing on own experiences and intuition. These findings are condensed into three overarching lessons for learning in water governance: (1) Interactive communication seems to form the overall frame for participant and group learning. Framing of learning experiences turned out to play an important and potentially distorting role, for which professional facilitation and structured knowledge aggregation methods might be an im-portant counterbalance. (2) Learning did not automatically enhance environmental outcomes. It may thus not be an explanatory variable for policy outcomes, but a conditioning or intervening vari-able related to collective action, motivation for participation, and situating the issue at hand at wider societal levels. (3) The concepts of puzzling and powering might help understand learning as a source for effectiveness in the long-term when complemented with interest-based debates for creat-ing sufficient political agency of policy issues. Learning seen as puzzling processes might instruct acceptance and legitimization for new powering efforts. The perpetuation of learning in systematic ways and structures appears to characterize an alternative to this reflexive and strategic interplay, for which the water-related EU directives provide the basis. These insights are of practical and policy relevance, particularly for policy makers and practitioners in the pursuit of learning. They may further contribute to the academic understanding of learning in water governance and its potential contribution to transforming and adapting water governance re-gimes, as envisioned in the European water-related directives.